I don't know why your comment made me chuckle so much--but it did! Thanks for the laugh!

November 17, 2012 at 12:22pm

Jindal and Christie are just playing to the masses.

Thank you for speaking the truth Mitt Romney.

The answer to the GOP issues is not moving to the center, is embracing libertarian principles. The GOP has the right answer economically, we get hammered on the social issues… Libertarianism and states rights are the answer… If your state wants to embrace Gay marriage, that is fine. If I don’t want to live there, then I won’t.

An analogy of our country: It’s like the parents went away for the weekend and the teenage kids threw a party, trashing the house and wreaking havoc. On Nov. 6, the parents come back to clean up the kids mess…

This does not mean that evolution does not exist. It DOES exist. Antibiotic resistance in microorganisms in your local hospital ward is proof of natural selection and evolution.

I think there are two extremes in the argument: God created us “from the dust of the earth” or we evolved from a primordial milieu. Evolution and religion do not have to be mutually exclusive.

What is wrong with the hybrid argument? Why couldn’t God have created organisms that evolve? Saying evolution is “evil” is something that humans have come up with. I have yet to see that in the bible.

By the same token, it makes sense that God would use a basic “template” (DNA) in creating all life, which explains DNA homology. He could literally make DNA from the “dust of the earth”, tweak it here and there and create all life on earth.

Also consider this: which would add more to the glory of God: creating something that never changes and just exists, or creating something that can adapt to its environment and evolve? I personally think the latter.

The answer to the whole debate lies in the genetic material, DNA. The best evidence for evolution (E.g. we evolved from a more primitive life form) comes from genetic comparisons among species. This is why you hear that 96% of the DNA in chimps is similar to human DNA.

Quick thought, consider this fact: the human genome has about 6 billion DNA base pairs. 96% of 6 billion is about 5.75 billion, which is only a small difference about about 250 million base pairs (sarcasm here). That is a huge difference, considering a bacterium has about 5 million base pairs in its genome.

Anyway, the question to ask an evolutionist is: which came first, DNA, RNA or protein? DNA contains the genetic information (e.g. software), which is transcribed into RNA (e.g. different format of software) to protein (the hardware to read the software).

Most experts in molecular biology agree that proteins are too unstable to have evolved on their own, and that DNA is too stable. RNA is believed to have both the catalytic and information-containing properties to be “the first genetic molecule.”

So, even if RNA existed primordially, which came first in evolution: DNA (the software) or protein (the hardware to read the software)? For example, software (DNA) cannot be created without the hardware (protein) to create it. Likewise, software (DNA) cannot be read without the hardware (protein) to read it. In the case of DNA, the hardware (protein) cannot be created without the software (DNA)…

This does not mean that evolution does not exist. It DOES exist. Antibiotic resistance in microorganisms in your local hospital ward is proof of natural selection and evolution.
I think there are two extremes in the argument: God created us "from the dust of the earth" or we evolved from a primordial milieu. Evolution and religion do not have to be mutually exclusive.
What is wrong with the hybrid argument? Why couldn't God have created organisms that evolve? Saying evolution is "evil" is something that humans have come up with. I have yet to see that in the bible.
By the same token, it makes sense that God would use a basic "template" (DNA) in creating all life, which explains DNA homology. He could literally make DNA from the "dust of the earth", tweak it here and there and create all life on earth.
Also consider this: which would add more to the glory of God: creating something that never changes and just exists, or creating something that can adapt to its environment and evolve? I personally think the latter.

October 13, 2012 at 12:28pm

Interestingly, I think that if Mitt Romney were to embrace some libertarian ideas, it would be an enormous landslide. For example, with gay marriage: government should get out of marriage. Period. Endow the churches with all the power for implementing marriage. This preserves the right of the church, while at the same time giving rights to LBGT folks. If there are churches that want to marry whomever, that is fine…

I know that the critics say that this is “an easy way out to get around a policy decision without standing for morals” etc. However, I truly beleive that it is the opposite. It gives the churches the power and emboldens the first amendment.

The record of Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are on opposite ends of the spectrum: one left their state with a surplus, the other has left the country with almost double the debt. One knows how the run a business, the other knows how to organize communities. One fought to shrink state government, the other has grown government. I could go on and on…

These are the types of statistics you hear on ESPN… “He has never thrown an interception on a third down in the third quarter of the third game during his third year starting on the 3rd of the month and the three yard line…”